DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US 2023/0127181) in view of Feng et al. (US 2022/0165772) further considered with Hai et al. (US 2022/0336510).
In regard to claim 1, Ito teaches an electronic device, comprising: a display panel (fig. 1 element PNL); and an optical sensing module disposed on a side of the display panel (fig. 1 element DD), and comprising: an optical sensing layer (element 3); an optical assembly disposed on the optical sensing layer (fig. 2 layer 41, 42 and lenses 5) comprising a plurality of microlenses (elements 5) but does not teach an array of optical sensing elements; a light-blocking element disposed on the optical assembly, overlapping a portion of the optical sensing layer and a portion of the optical assembly in a normal direction of the optical sensing layer; wherein the light-blocking element comprises a first opening having a first width and a second opening having a second width, and the first width is different from the second width, and wherein the light-blocking element shields at least three rows or at least three columns of the optical sensing elements.
Feng et al. teach a light-blocking element disposed on the optical assembly (element 231), overlapping a portion of the optical sensing layer and a portion of the optical assembly in a normal direction of the optical sensing layer (fig. 2 element 231 overlaps element 22); wherein the light-blocking element comprises a first portion and a second portion, the first portion has a first width and the second portion has a second width, wherein the first width is different from the second width, and wherein the first portion and the second portion overlap with each other along a direction parallel to the optical sensing layer (fig. 8. Element 231 tapers to have a first and second width. The projections of the first portion and second portion overlap over the sensor 22. This is the same shape as shown in applicant’s fig. 8).
The two are analogous art because they both deal with the same field of invention of fingerprint detection.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Ito with the light blocking element of Feng et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus Ito with the light blocking element of Feng et al. because the tapered light blocking element of Feng et al. would work equally as well as the two layer straight sided light blocking elements of Ito. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize using the single layer light blocking elements and apertures of Feng et al. would provide predictable results and would reduce the number of parts.
Hai et al. teach an array of optical sensing elements (paragraph 78 “a plurality of optical sensors 21 arranged in an array…”), and wherein the light-blocking element shields at least three rows or at least three columns of the optical sensing elements (See the final paragraph of paragraph 94. Hai et al. teach the light-shielding area containing the same optical structure as the light-sensitive area. Hai et al. teach the light-shielding area A3 not receiving light and being used for a denoising process).
The three are analogous art because they all deal with the same field of invention of fingerprint detection.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Ito and Feng et al. with the denoising area of Hai et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus Ito and Feng et al. with the denoising area of Hai et al. because the denoising area of Hai et al. would improve detection accuracy.
In regard to claim 2, Ito teaches wherein the optical assembly comprises a plurality of light-blocking layers, at least a portion of the plurality of light-blocking layers have different-sized openings, and the sizes of the openings of the at least portion of the plurality of light-blocking layers gradually decrease. wherein the sizes of the openings of the at least portion of the plurality of light-blocking layers gradually decrease (fig. 3, OP1 is larger than OP2).
In regard to claim 3, Ito teaches at least one of the plurality of lenses overlaps one of the openings of the at least portion of the plurality of light-blocking layers (fig. 2 elements 5).
In regard to claim 4, Ito teaches wherein the at least one of the plurality of lenses is disposed between the display panel and the plurality of light- blocking layers (fig. 5, lenses are between display PNL and light-blocking layer 4).
In regard to claim 5, Ito teaches wherein the optical sensing layer comprises a plurality of optical sensing elements, and the plurality of optical sensing elements are arranged in an array (fig. 1 elements SS).
In regard to claim 7, Ito teaches wherein the optical sensing module comprises a transmission line electrically connected to the optical sensing layer, and the light-blocking element overlaps the transmission line (fig. 2, Ito teaches wiring WL1 and WL2 that are covered by layer 40).
In regard to claim 10, Feng et al. teach wherein the light-blocking element comprises a step (fig. 8).
In regard to claim 11, Feng et al. teach wherein the light-blocking element comprises an inclined side surface (fig. 8).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito in view of Feng et al. further considered with Hai et al. and Huang (US 2022/0245374).
In regard to claim 6, Ito, Feng et al. and Hai et al. teach all the elements of claim 6 except wherein the light-blocking element overlaps at least three rows or at least three columns of the optical sensing elements (Ito teaches the light blocking element 40 overlapping the sensors but does not explicitly state it covers more than 1 sensor).
Huang teaches wherein the light-blocking element overlaps at least three rows or at least three columns of the optical sensing elements (fig. 3, cut-off filter 160 overlaps the 6 columns shown).
The four are analogous art because they all deal with the same field of invention of fingerprint detection.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Ito, Feng et al. and Hai et al. with the cut-off filter layer of Huang. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Ito, Feng et al. and Hai et al. with the cut-off filter layer of Huang because creating a single layer filter rather than a segmented filter would reduce manufacturing complexity.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito in view of Feng et al. further considered with Hai et al. and Que (US 2019/0011746).
In regard to claim 8, Ito, Feng et al. and Hai et al. teach all the elements of claim 8 except wherein the optical sensing module comprises a bonding pad and a circuit board electrically connected to the optical sensing layer via the bonding pad, and the light-blocking element overlaps the bonding pad.
Que teaches wherein module comprises a bonding pad and a circuit board electrically connected to the circuit via the bonding pad, and the light-blocking element overlaps the bonding pad (element 6 and paragraph 29).
The four are analogous art because they all deal with the same field of invention of light shielding in electronic devices.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Ito, Feng et al. and Hai et al. with the light blocking layer of the bonding pads of Que. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Ito, Xie and Hai et al. with the light blocking layer of the bonding pads of Que because the light blocking layer of Que would prevent the circuit board and bonding pad from reflecting light.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito in view of Xie further considered with Hai et al. and Nakatogawa (US 2022/0357625).
In regard to claim 9, Ito, Xie and Hai et al. teach all the elements of claim 9 except wherein the light-blocking element has a nonlinear side surface.
Nakatogawa teaches wherein the light-blocking element has a nonlinear side surface (figs. 1 and 2, element PP is round).
The four are analogous art because they all deal with the same field of invention of light shielding in electronic devices.
Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of Ito, Xie and Hai et al. with the nonlinear side surface of Nakatogawa. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of Ito, Xie and Hai et al. with the nonlinear side surface of Nakatogawa because the nonlinear side surface of Nakatogawa would work equally as well in the apparatus of Ito, Feng et al. and Hai et al. as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the use of a round aperture would provide predictable results and could be used depending on manufacturing complexity, cost, etc.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1/10/26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH R HALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0574. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amr Awad can be reached on 571-272-7764. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH R HALEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621